The Dixon Planning Commission will hold a special meeting Tuesday to vote on an amended and restated development agreement for the Southwest Dixon Specific Plan.

The resolution before the commissioners, which will move on to the City Council if approved, contains vesting tentative maps for three elements of the Homestead project, landscape plans for the first phase of the project and an addendum to the Specific Plan’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Per a staff report by Community Development Director Dina Tasini, the City Council adopted a resolution certifying an EIR for the Specific Plan in 2004. One year later, the council approved the Specific Plan itself in addition to a development agreement for the area covered by the plan. This 2005 agreement remains in effect, but because of changes in landownership, city staff and City Attorney Doug White have negotiated an amended and restated agreement with a revised phasing plan.

The majority of the Specific Plan area has been obtained by JEN 6 California LLC, a limited liability company managed by Taylor Builders, a Roseville-based real estate developer tasked with developing the Homestead project. JEN has submitted two vesting tentative subdivision maps for the first phase, as well as two village concepts, for the Homestead project.

Homestead is a proposed housing community located in southwest Dixon. The first two villages are slated to be located adjacent to existing residential subdivisions south of West A Street, while part of Village 2 and all of Village 3 will be located between South Lincoln Street and Evans Road. Village 2 will have 52 single-family residences on 19.2 gross acres, and Village 3 will have 206 single-family homes in addition to a neighborhood park. Combined, the two villages would tentatively create 258 residential parcels, with lot sizes ranging from 6,000 to more than 19,000 square feet, according to Tasini.

“These varying lot sizes will provide a diversity of single-family home types, which will provide opportunities for a wide array of city residents, such as first-time homebuyers seeking smaller lots, along with established families seeking larger lot sizes,” she wrote.

Additionally, Tasini noted that the villages’ residential parcels are located along curved streets and cul-de-sacs, which would reduce the speed of vehicles.

“Villages 2 and 3 would provide a high-quality residential community to the city and will add much-needed housing to the region,” she wrote.

One stipulation of the development agreement is to build 131 affordable housing units, 69 of which are strictly for seniors and 62 of which are affordable to moderate-income households. JEN will be constructing 25 of the senior-restricted units and 62 of the non-restricted units, while the remaining units will be built by West Sacramento home-building company ASB.

“Under the Amended and Restated Development Agreement, the overall delivery of JEN’s affordable housing units is accelerated as compared to the 2005 agreement,” Tasini wrote.

Additionally, Tasini wrote that design review will be required before building permits for individual homes are issued. Elevations, product types and building-specific conditions will be subject to design review to address specific setups that are applicable to each village.

The development agreement also calls for a variety of infrastructure improvements, including fixes to roadways and the water system as well as providing traffic signals, utility lines and the dedication of a well site. The agreement also calls for JEN to convey a fire station site and dedicate and improve a neighborhood park.

Roadway improvements will include expanding Pitt School Road south of A Street, expanding South Lincoln, West A and Evans; and new planned roadways within the two villages.

“These improvements will accommodate new residents and will address circulation needs for Villages 2 and 3,” Tasini wrote.

Finally, an addendum was added to determine if any substantial changes have occurred since the first EIR was adopted in 2004 that would require a new document to be prepared. The two changes reviewed were the establishment of a city water system and traffic-related mitigation measures, but staff concluded that neither would have a significant impact.

“The addendum concludes that neither change, to the water delivery service or traffic mitigation, warrants the preparation of a new or subsequent EIR,” Tasini wrote.

Staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the council approve the updated agreement.

The Dixon Planning Commission meets at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the council chamber, 600 East A St.